Bava Batra 107aבבא בתרא ק״ז א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bava Batra 107a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
107aק״ז א
1 א

התם עבוד רבנן מילתא דניחא ליה למוכר וניחא ליה ללוקח

The Gemara answers: The cases cannot be compared because there, in the case of the sale of grain, the Sages instituted a matter that is suitable for the seller and also suitable for the buyer. Since the price of grain fluctuates, neither party wants the sale to be considered complete until the last se’a is measured out, so that they each are able to renege on the sale should the price rise or fall. This reasoning does not apply in cases of division of property.

2 ב

איתמר אחין שחלקו ובא בעל חוב ונטל חלקו של אחד מהן רב אמר בטלה מחלוקת ושמואל אמר ויתר ורב אסי אמר נוטל רביע בקרקע ורביע במעות

§ It was stated that the amora’im disagreed about another related matter: If two brothers divided their father’s estate between them, and then their father’s creditor came and took the portion of one of them as repayment for the father’s debt, Rav says: The original division of the property is void, and the brothers must now redivide the remaining assets. Shmuel says: Each brother, upon receiving his portion, has foregone his right to be reimbursed if his portion is lost. Rav Asi says: The brother whose portion was seized is entitled to half the remaining inheritance: He takes one-quarter in land and one-quarter in money.

3 ג

רב אמר בטלה מחלוקת קא סבר האחין שחלקו יורשין הן

The Gemara explains the rationale for each opinion: Rav says that the original division of the property is void. This is because he holds that brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are still considered to be heirs with regard to the inheritance as if they never divided the property, so that they continue to share joint responsibility for their father’s debts. Therefore, if a creditor seizes the portion received by one of them, it is as if he repaid the debt on behalf of all the heirs. Accordingly, they must once again divide the remaining property between them.

4 ד

ושמואל אמר ויתר קא סבר האחין שחלקו לקוחות הוו וכלוקח שלא באחריות דמי

And Shmuel says that each brother, upon receiving his portion, has foregone his right to be reimbursed if his portion is lost, as he holds that brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are considered as purchasers from each other. And each one is considered like a purchaser who bought his portion without a guarantee that if the field is seized in payment of a debt, the seller will compensate the buyer for his loss. Accordingly, the brother whose portion of the estate was seized by the creditor has no claim against the brother whose portion remained untouched.

5 ה

רב אסי מספקא ליה אי יורשין הוו אי לקוחות הוו הלכך נוטל רביע בקרקע ורביע במעות

Rav Asi is uncertain whether brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are still considered to be heirs or are considered to be like purchasers who bought their property with a guarantee of compensation should the property be repossessed. Therefore, the brother whose portion was seized by the creditor is entitled to half the remaining inheritance, and he takes one-quarter in land like an heir and one-quarter he receives in money, like a purchaser with a guarantee, who is compensated with money for his loss.

6 ו

אמר רב פפא הלכתא בכל הני שמעתתא מקמצין אמימר אמר בטלה מחלוקת והלכתא בטלה מחלוקת:

Rav Pappa says: The halakha in all the cases dealt with in these statements recording disagreements between Rav and Shmuel is that the brothers must each take off a share from their portion in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. Rather, any brother currently in possession of his portion must give part of it to his brother who lacks a portion, so that in the end they have equal shares. Ameimar says: The halakha in all of these cases is that the original division of the property is void, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in fact that the original division of the property is void, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

7 ז

תנו רבנן שלשה שירדו לשום אחד אומר במנה ושנים אומרים במאתים אחד אומר במאתים ושנים אומרים במנה בטל יחיד במיעוטו

§ The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 11:2): In a case of three experts who went down to assess a certain property in order to determine the amount to be collected from it for repayment of a debt, and one says it is worth one hundred dinars, and the other two say it is worth two hundred, or one says it is worth two hundred dinars and the other two say it is worth one hundred, the assessment of the single expert is nullified, since his is the minority opinion, and the assessment of the two others is accepted.

8 ח

אחד אומר במנה ואחד אומר בעשרים ואחד אומר בשלשים נדון במנה רבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק אומר נדון בתשעים אחרים אומרים עושין שומא ביניהן ומשלשין

If one says the property is worth one hundred dinars, and another says it is worth twenty sela, which is equivalent to eighty dinars, since four dinars equal a sela, and yet another says it is worth thirty sela, which is equivalent to one hundred and twenty dinars, it is assessed at one hundred dinars, which is the average of the assessments, as it is equivalent to twenty-five sela. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: It is assessed at ninety dinars, as will be explained below. Aḥerim say: An appraisal is performed of the sum between the two most extreme assessments and then divided by three. This sum is then added to the lowest assessment.

9 ט

מאן דאמר נדון במנה מילתא מציעתא רבי אליעזר בר' צדוק אומר נדון בתשעים קא סבר הא ארעא

The Gemara clarifies the various opinions: The one who says that the property is assessed at one hundred dinars holds that the middle of the two extreme assessments is followed. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says that it is assessed at ninety dinars because he holds that this land